Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Czech Regional Policy. Trapped in the Mode of Centralisation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Czech Democracy in Crisis

  • 303 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter analyses how regionalisation has developed as a consequence of EU conditionality in Czechia. Applying two models of hierarchical and cooperative governance, it shows that the Czech central government acted cooperatively only to a limited extent. Therefore, the access to structural funds was not followed by clear regionalisation. The EU induced cooperative forms of regional policy, but they were not developed systematically. The decentralisation was also inconsequential, as the regions’ financial autonomy remains limited. Hence, the Czech regions seek to use EU structural funds to compensate for their financial weakness. The limited performance of regional institutions boosted tendencies towards re-centralisation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The government’s decision on the guidelines for regional policy from 1992 stated that a generally binding bill on regional policy is not necessary (Pileček et al. 2011, p. 18).

  2. 2.

    Municipalities were installed in 1990 as local self-administration bodies. From 1948 until 1989 state and self-administration bodies were replaced by national committees at the level of municipalities, districts and regions, which were organised according to the hierarchical centralised principle of state and party structure (“democratic centralism”).

  3. 3.

    Districts were established in 1990 as self-administration bodies in regions.

  4. 4.

    The partnership principle shall be observed during designing, financing, monitoring and evaluating the EU funding projects.

  5. 5.

    In 1993, the European Communities declared their willingness to accept the post-socialist Central European countries wishing to join. In 1994, the European Council formulated a pre-accession strategy and specified instruments in compliance with EU law including association agreements, a structural dialogue and also the PHARE programme. In 1994, the Czech government established the Governmental Committee on European Integration that drafted a timetable for EU accession in 1995 (Rovná 2001, pp. 110–111).

  6. 6.

    The PHARE projects concerned finance, interior affairs, agriculture, environment, justice and civil society (Kozlová et al. 2007, p. 13).

  7. 7.

    30% of the PHARE funding was designated for institutional stabilisation and 70% for economic transformation as well as social and economic cohesion (Rovná 2001, p. 113).

  8. 8.

    In the pre-accession period, the delegation of the European Commission in Prague approved the PHARE projects.

  9. 9.

    Similarly, the Regional Development Agency South Moravia was concerned with the administration of the PHARE programme in the Czech-Austrian border area.

  10. 10.

    Implementing bodies usually come in direct contact with project applicants and adapt contents of projects to the local context. Administrative bodies decide on the extent of activities to be delegated to implementing bodies.

  11. 11.

    In April 1998, the compliance screening of the Czech legislation with EU law started as part of the accession negotiations. The assessment had to be completed by the middle of 1999.

  12. 12.

    The National Development Plan, from 2014 until 2020 National Development Priorities, stipulates on a more general level the thematic investment and national funding priorities on the basis of the Community Strategic Guidelines on Cohesion.

  13. 13.

    The broad ownership structure was meant to have a positive effect on the financing of the development agencies, as this was primarily effected by means of membership fees.

  14. 14.

    In the case of the Regional Development Agency Ostrava, the Moravian-Silesian Region is the only shareholder.

  15. 15.

    In 2012, the Regional Development Agency Prague was dismantled after two years of operation.

  16. 16.

    By the time of the Czech EU accession in 2004, the GDP of Prague amounted to 127% of the EU GDP.

  17. 17.

    This division was guided by the territorial administrative division of the socialist Czechoslovakia since 1949 (Pileček et al. 2011, p. 36), which was introduced by the former regime in order to split the regional administrative centres and control them more efficiently (Pernes 2013, p. 8).

  18. 18.

    The district authorities were dissolved by the end of 2002. The regional and municipal self-governments in Czechia work following the integrated model in which regions and municipalities perform beside their autonomous also delegated state administration tasks.

  19. 19.

    The regions’ own financial resources represent one third of their total revenue (Provazníková 2009, p. 157).

  20. 20.

    The NUTS-2 regions roughly correspond to eight regions, which in 1960 replaced the 14 regions from 1949 after a regional administration reform in the Czech part of the Czechoslovak federation (Pithart 2016, p. 348). The logic behind this was national economic planning, for which the 14 regions were too small. The territorial division from 1960 has remained in force since then and still applies, e.g. in judiciary, fiscal authority and police. The Eurostat had originally recommended to form the NUTS-2 regions on the basis of the existing eight regions.

  21. 21.

    The regional councils of the cohesion regions are neither state administrations, nor self-governing entities. Instead, they have the status of the remaining public administration (Semorád 2009, p. 13).

  22. 22.

    The capital Prague is an exception as it forms a stand-alone NUTS-2 region with both its municipal council and administration exercising the functions of the committee.

  23. 23.

    As the regional councils didn’t initially possess any legal personality, they could not function, according to EU regulations, as administrative bodies of the regional operational programmes. They only obtained legal personality after an amendment to the law on the support of regional policy from June 2006 (Semorád 2009, p. 12).

  24. 24.

    The deadline for the absorption of the EU funds in the funding period 2004 until 2006 expired at the end of 2008.

  25. 25.

    In the Northwest Cohesion Region, consisting of the Ústecký and the Carlsbad Regions, the director of the regional council’s agency was convicted of bribery (Nadační fond proti korupci 2016). In 2014, the chief of the Liberec region and chairperson of the regional council of the Northeast Cohesion Region was accused of bribery and manipulation of EU funds (ibid.); the trial began in December 2018 and still continues. In 2012, one of the biggest corruption scandals came to light in the Central Bohemia Cohesion Region, which overlaps with the Central Bohemian Region. A clientelist network built around the region’s governor manipulated between 2008 and 2012 public procurement and decision-making of the authorities of the Regional Operational Programme Central Bohemia (Boud et al. 2013). The former chief of the Central Bohemian Region, David Rath, was convicted of bribery in 2015; the court of appeal confirmed the sentence in June 2019.

References

  • Adamčík, Stanislav. 1998. Zdroje teorie regionální politiky a regionálního rozvoje. Ostrava: VŠB – Technická univerzita Ostrava.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baun, Michael, and Dan Marek. 2006. Regional Policy and Decentralization in the Czech Republic. Regional and Federal Studies 16 (4): 409–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2017. The Limits of Regionalization: The Intergovernmental Struggle over EU Cohesion Policy in the Czech Republic. East European Politics and Societies and Cultures 20 (10): 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benz, Arthur, Dietrich Fürst, Heiderose Kilper, and Dieter Rehfeld, eds. 1999. Regionalisierung Theorie – Praxis – Perspektiven. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blum, Sonja, and Klaus Schubert. 2009. Politikfeldanalyse. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boháčková, Ivana, and Magdalena Hrabánková. 2009. Strukturální politika Evropské unie. Prague: C. H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Börzel, Tanja. 2008. Der “Schatten der Hierarchie” – Ein Governance-Paradox? In Governance in einer sich wandelnden Welt, ed. Gunnar F. Schuppert and Michael Zürn, 118–131. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Boud, Petr, et al. 2013. Public Money and Corruption Risks. The Risks of System Political Corruption in the Management of EU Funds and State-owned Enterprises in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland. Frank Bold. https://frankbold.org/sites/default/files/publikace/public_money_and_corruption_risks.pdf. Accessed August 2, 2019.

  • Brenner, Neil. 2000. Building “Euro-Regions” Locational Politics and the Political Geography of Neoliberalism in Post-Unification Germany. European Urban and Regional Studies 7 (4): 319–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brusis, Martin. 2005. The Instrumental Use of European Union Conditionality: Regionalization in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. East European Politics and Societies 19: 291–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capanda, Filip. 2009. Úskalí implementačního systému strukturální politiky Evropské unie v České republice v programovém období 2007–2013. Unpublished master thesis, Univerzita Karlova.

    Google Scholar 

  • Centrum pro regionální rozvoj. 2016. Centrum pro regionální rozvoj České republiky v období 2014–2020. http://www.crr.cz/Files/Docs/Seminare_prezentace/01_CRR.pdf. Accessed August 2, 2019.

  • Göhler, Gerhard, ed. 1997. Institutionenwandel. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grzymala-Busse, Anna. 2006. Informal Institutions and the Post-Communist State. Yale University. https://www.ucis.pitt.edu/nceeer/2004_818-02f_Grzymala-Busse.pdf. Accessed August 2, 2019.

  • Heimpold, Gerhard. 2002. Regionalpolitische Institutionen der mittel- und osteuropäischen Länder – fit für die Aufnahme in die EU? Wirtschaft im Wandel 8 (6): 167–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keating, Michael. 2017. Europe as a Multilevel Federation. Journal of European Public Policy 24 (4): 615–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kern, Jiří. 1998. Teoretická a metodologická báze regionální politiky. Ostrava: VŠB – Technická univerzita Ostrava.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klaphake, Axel. 2000. Europäische und nationale Regionalpolitik für Ostdeutschland: neuere regionalökonomische Theorien und praktische Erfahrungen. Wiesbaden: Dt. Univ.-Verl.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kozlová, Michaela, et al. 2007. Komparace charakteru regionální politiky před vstupem a po vstupu ČR do EU. Working Paper. http://www.iips.cz/userfiles/file/wp_21_regionalni_politika.pdf. Accessed August 2, 2019.

  • Kraus, Michael, and Allison Stanger, eds. 2000. Irreconcilable Differences? Explaining Czechoslovakia’s Dissolution. Lanham. Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maierbrugger, Gernot. 2000. Dezentrale Regionalpolitik im Transformationsprozess: Das Beispiel der Tschechischen Republik. Der Öffentliche Sektor 2000 (1–2): 43–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martens, Daniel. 1980. Grundsätze und Voraussetzungen einer regionalen Regionalpolitik. Informationen zur Raumentwicklung 5: 263–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMaster, Irene. 2006. Czech Regional Development Agencies in a Shifting Institutional Landscape. Europe-Asia Studies 58 (3): 347–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministerstvo pro místní rozvoj. 2012. Operační programy 2007–2013. https://www.dotaceeu.cz/cs/Migrace/Fondy-EU/Predchozi-programova-obdobi/Programove-obdobi-2007-2013/Programy-2007-2013. Accessed August 2, 2019.

  • Nadační fond proti korupci. 2016. Třicet případů napříč Českem aneb jak se vládne na krajích a v obcích. http://www.nfpk.cz/_userfiles/soubory/aktivity/30_pripadu_napric_ceskem.pdf. Accessed August 2, 2019.

  • Pernes, Jakub. 2013. Snahy o obnovu moravskoslezské samosprávy v roce 1968. Unpublished master thesis, Masarykova univerzita.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pick, Otto. 1995. Transformation in Central Europe – The Risk Factor. Perspectives 5: 43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pieper, Karin. 2006. Regionalpolitik in Ungarn und Polen. Zwei Staaten im EU-Beitrittsprozess. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pileček, Jan, et al. 2011. Regionální politika, územní disparity a dopady hospodářské krize České republice. ÚRS PRAHA. https://www.urspraha.cz/data/upload/file/regionalnipolitika-uzemnidisparityadopadyhospodarskekrizevcr.pdf. Accessed August 2, 2019.

  • Pithart, Petr. 2016. Po devětaosmdesátém. Praha: Academia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Provazníková, Romana. 2009. Financování měst, obcí a regionů. Praha: Grada Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rovná, Lenka A. 2001. The Enlargement of the European Union: The Case of the Czech Republic. Perspectives on European Politics and Society 2 (1): 105–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rozpočty územních samosprávných celků, dobrovolných svazků obcí a regionálních rad regionů soudržnosti. 2016. Ministerstvo financí.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryšlavý, Ivo. 2008. Deset let Centra pro regionální rozvoj. Deník veřejné správy. http://www.dvs.cz/clanek.asp?id=6306098. Accessed October 19, 2019.

  • Sedláková, Petra. 2005. Programy pomoci Evropských společenství s důrazem na jejich využití v České republice. Unpublished bachelor thesis, Karlova Univerzita.

    Google Scholar 

  • Semorád, Zdeněk. 2009. Činnost Regionálních rad regionů soudržnosti. Urbanismus a územní rozvoj 12 (5): 12–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skokan, Karel. 2004. Konkurenceschopnost, inovace a klastry v regionálním rozvoji. Ostrava: Repronis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stejskal, Jan, and Jaroslav Kovárník. 2009. Regionální politika a její nástroje. Prague: Portál.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zákon ze dne 29. června 2000 o podpoře regionálního rozvoje. https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/2015-298. Accessed August 2, 2019.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Political Science, Faculty of Social Sciences and Philosophy, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany

    Hana Formánková

  2. Research Academy Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

    Hana Formánková

Authors
  1. Hana Formánková
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hana Formánková .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany

    Astrid Lorenz

  2. Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany

    Hana Formánková

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Formánková, H. (2020). Czech Regional Policy. Trapped in the Mode of Centralisation. In: Lorenz, A., Formánková, H. (eds) Czech Democracy in Crisis. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40006-4_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation